Gawdzila:Or maybe they know it won't work and just want to punch WalMart in the wallet.I think it might work better than you think. The sort of mouth-breathers that apply to WalMart will probably take longer than 2 weeks to figure out how to work a cash register. Even if they got a bunch of job applicants, considering the relatively short time frame the stores would not be running smoothly (even compared to normal) and would cost the store quite a bit of revenue.

Ship them in from other states. It might cost a bit but the sales will go on. No training required.

ACallForPeace:Silly Jesus: It's a voluntary exchange. They went to Wal-mart and asked for the ability to exchange their labor for the amount of money that Wal-mart was offering. They weren't recruited or forced to work there. If they don't like the terms of their voluntary contract, they are free to leave and Wal-mart should be free to replace them with someone else.

Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For, while technically "voluntary" , capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty. This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising to obey in return for payment. To promise to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate. This results in those obeying no longer making their own decisions. Thus the rational for voluntarism (i.e. that individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and must be allowed to express their individuality and make their own decisions) is violated in a hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the many obey. Thus any voluntarism which generates relationships of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and violates its own justification.

This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, ho ...

I'm calling bullshiat on that. Shiatty corporate practices by Walmart aren't the only reasons I prefer Target. Both the employees and the clientele at WalMart are as terrifying as the People of Walmart site tells us. Unless those are the ONLY hot chicks at ALL of the WalMarts, and they added some ex-employees as well as a few customers, that explanation I'll buy...

ILoveBurritos:I get that this is mainly a workers vs employers thread at this point, but I can't help but think that the real problem is the consumers (and excessive consumerism). No one wants to pay for decently made products anymore because the only thing consumers look at is the price tag. I'm not good at explaining myself, but it feels like we all assume we've given up on even thinking we can rehabilitate the public on shopping effectively. Like consumers are compelled to shop at Walmart, just open one and people will flock there unable to control themselves.

You assume that outsourcing was caused by consumers demanding lower prices. This is completely false.Companies outsource to save money. Lower prices may be a side effect of that as the company tries to increase market share, but blaming it on consumer spending habits is wrong.

Sergeant Grumbles:Fade2black: Have you heard of entry level jobs to get your skills in order, so you can actually take some initiative to move on to a better paying job through school, training, or perseverance? Not everything is handed out on a silver platter (yet, the dems have 4 more years). If that was the case, high school kids would be basking in riches from Mcdonald's.

Retail and Fast Food is tradionally entry level jobs. They are used for job experience and training so you can move on to bigger and better. They are not jobs built around you deciding you're entitled to a pension and a petty cash fund.

Is there some reason working for Wal-Mart need not be gainful employment besides your opinion of what counts as work?

I just explained why. You're just looping it around so that you don't have to counter the argument. If this were the politics tab you would've called me Hitler or used Correlation/Causation to shut me up because you couldn't come up with a retort.

Entry level is entry level for a reason. Not everybody needs an economics class to understand that if you jump up every single "no training required" job to "gainfully employed" that it would collapse the economy.

...or are you just angry and frustrated because divorced with 3 kids working at 34 1/2 hours in retail isn't paying the bills you brought on?

ILoveBurritos:I get that this is mainly a workers vs employers thread at this point, but I can't help but think that the real problem is the consumers (and excessive consumerism). No one wants to pay for decently made products anymore because the only thing consumers look at is the price tag. I'm not good at explaining myself, but it feels like we all assume we've given up on even thinking we can rehabilitate the public on shopping effectively. Like consumers are compelled to shop at Walmart, just open one and people will flock there unable to control themselves.On a tangent though, I've read that companies that want to sell with Walmart have to meet certain price guidelines otherwise Walmart won't carry their products and since Walmart is such an important chain to sell through. Companies are basically forced to make cheaper products for these dumbass consumers.What this really all comes down to is that I hadn't had to buy denim jeans for a decade, and now that I'm looking, all I can find anywhere is paper thin garbage that doesn't feel sturdy at all, anywhere. When I compare it to my old ones, the newer ones are obviously inferior. Why would I want to spend $30 on a cheap pair of jeans I'll end up replacing 5 times in the span that a $60 pair would have lasted me once?

I would say that's a pretty good assessment. The consumers and shareholders are most definitely a huge part of the problem. In the end it's all about greed. Everyone wants more, more, more...and they don't want to pay for it. Hell, the black Friday event is a celebration of greed. Can anyone think of any logical justification for human beings to be trampled to death by a crowd trying to buy plastic things in a store? No. What you have is a crowd of hundreds of people who saw a person hurting on the ground and then made the decision to ignore them, because they can get a good deal on a shiatty TV or laptop. That's a pretty serious problem.

Testiclaw:TiiiMMMaHHH: The workers are demanding the following from Walmart:

We should be demanding similar requirements for every human on this Earth.

Good for the WM employees for getting together to do this.

You mean, mean guy Testiclaw. We should demand, DEMAND! that everybody on earth be given, not a tolerable wage of perhaps $25,000 as you propose, but a fortune of, say, *puts pinkie to side of lip* ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Yes this proposal sounds crazy to some, and yes I'm just having fun with you over this, but please explain in your wisdom what makes my evil plan any different from yours, save by degree? And oh yes, also tell us EXACTLY WHO is to 'provide' all of this largess to the nonproductive people of the world.

ILoveBurritos:I get that this is mainly a workers vs employers thread at this point, but I can't help but think that the real problem is the consumers (and excessive consumerism). No one wants to pay for decently made products anymore because the only thing consumers look at is the price tag. I'm not good at explaining myself, but it feels like we all assume we've given up on even thinking we can rehabilitate the public on shopping effectively. Like consumers are compelled to shop at Walmart, just open one and people will flock there unable to control themselves.On a tangent though, I've read that companies that want to sell with Walmart have to meet certain price guidelines otherwise Walmart won't carry their products and since Walmart is such an important chain to sell through. Companies are basically forced to make cheaper products for these dumbass consumers.What this really all comes down to is that I hadn't had to buy denim jeans for a decade, and now that I'm looking, all I can find anywhere is paper thin garbage that doesn't feel sturdy at all, anywhere. When I compare it to my old ones, the newer ones are obviously inferior. Why would I want to spend $30 on a cheap pair of jeans I'll end up replacing 5 times in the span that a $60 pair would have lasted me once?

Walmart is a HUGE bully in the business world.

It's a terrible company. I'm very grateful I don't have to shop there. I know plenty of people who aren't so fortunate.

/so sick of buying cheap shiat only to have it break immediately.//I. would. like. to. purchase. some. quality. goods. please.///seriously, I'll pay whatever it takes, just, enough with the cheap shiat////i hope Wal-mart workers fark UP Black Friday//fark black friday anyways, watching citizens of one of the wealthiest nations in the world fight over cheap consumer goods is just embarrasing

IlGreven:Great Janitor: n short, Walmart workers, you knew what you were getting into when you filled out the job application.

And thus, Wal-Mart is absolved of absolutely all responsibility to you.

/If you're not saying that, don't imply it.

Yeah, I've always LOVED that line of "reasoning". It's the same thing you hear when you point out that waiters make $2.13/hour. Especially ironic coming from the same people who go on rampages against Obama about the unemployment rate, and how people have to take crappy jobs just to get by.

timujin:Silly Jesus: LULZ. I hope they are all fired. Plenty more people out there who would love their job.

Generally speaking, that is untrue. While working at Wal-mart is not a job that requires a particularly high skill level, the people who are skilled enough are also the people who like to be able to eat and who don't like to be told to do work that is in violation of labor laws. Now, I'm sure there are people that are willing to put up with that, but I believe Wal-mart will find the quality of those workers to be lacking.

Basically, you pay for what you get.

Which also happens to be true when you shop at Wal-mart.

Plenty of people work second jobs there during the holidays, so yeah there will be plenty of people willing to do their jobs without a problem at all.

Also, crooks and liars has a OWS section? Figures most of their articles are bullshiat, just like OWS and their goals, fark both of them this wont make a dent in their sales at all.

I'm calling bullshiat on that. Shiatty corporate practices by Walmart aren't the only reasons I prefer Target. Both the employees and the clientele at WalMart are as terrifying as the People of Walmart site tells us. Unless those are the ONLY hot chicks at ALL of the WalMarts, and they added some ex-employees as well as a few customers, that explanation I'll buy...

In the section of town I used to reside in there were a few smokin hot cashiers. But overall I would agree with you.

megalynn44:/so sick of buying cheap shiat only to have it break immediately.

Funny thing is, it wouldn't really cost much if anything more to sell good merchandise. Owing to price creep, in many places and on many items the differential between what Wal-Mart sells and good stuff is not much if anything. Costco somehow manages to sell good stuff for cheap, yet Sam's Club doesn't. It's not the stuff, it's the people doing the selling that are the issue.

Benevolent Misanthrope:Telling Wal-Mart that they plan to strike in a week, on the busiest day of the year, is the smartest thing they can do. It gives Wal-Mart a chance to come to the table and give them what they want before shiat gets real, and follows the principles of good faith bargaining while making it clear that they have leverage.

It also gives WalMart a way to turn this in their favor. A lot of times, these are small stories, or never make it into the news. Doing it this way gives WalMart the opportunity to play this up in the media.

/Not that I have any faith in WalMart being smart enough to see this...

Sergeant Grumbles:Fade2black: Have you heard of entry level jobs to get your skills in order, so you can actually take some initiative to move on to a better paying job through school, training, or perseverance? Not everything is handed out on a silver platter (yet, the dems have 4 more years). If that was the case, high school kids would be basking in riches from Mcdonald's.

Retail and Fast Food is tradionally entry level jobs. They are used for job experience and training so you can move on to bigger and better. They are not jobs built around you deciding you're entitled to a pension and a petty cash fund.

Is there some reason working for Wal-Mart need not be gainful employment besides your opinion of what counts as work?

If you want to do that, then you work your way up to management and you get more money.

And then they could sue WalMart for pretty well anything they want. Oh and WalMart would also face federal lawsuits.

And then it will wind its way through the courts until the plaintiffs run out of money in about 7 hours.

Nope, I would bet they'd find a way to make this a class action, by rolling it with other employment complaints. Those are quite often freebies, because the settlements are huge and the lawyers get paid directly from the settlement. Only problem is that they quite often take years to resolve... Hell, I got a check the other day from the Classmates.com settlement, and that was from around 2002 or so...

"let us do for you, what we've done to the U.S. Auto and steel industries"

At least Wal-Mart got a free way to identify lazy, shiftless, braindead workers. They'll fire the dead wood, and the company will be better off.

//any defeat for organized Labor is a victory for the American Economy.

Are you sitting down for this because I don't want you to hurt yourself....German and Japanese autoworkers are both unionized. U.S. Auto struggling the last few decades was simply because they designed and tried to sell awful awful cars.

Silly Jesus:Maybe it will shape up like the Hostess strike. Hostess told the workers that if they went on strike they would shutter the factories and fire them all. They went on strike...Hostess closed the factories...the workers went all WHARGARBLLL "yall took are jerbs!" It was beeeautiful.

Mikey1969:You don't understand how these things work, do you? You get the best results when you give the organization that you are protesting a chance to resolve the issue before D-Day. Also, it gets the word out, making it easier to get press coverage and find people familiar with the issue if the protest is carried out.

That's a good attitude for feel-good liberal reformism.It's not a good attitude to take for an effective direct action though.The powers that be don't respond when you ask nicely, at most you get an extra symbolic crumb. The best thing to do is act on your own and bypass their channels all together.Kind of like the difference between a gathered circle of liberals kindly asking for change and getting pepper sprayed in the face for their kindness (UC Davis, I think?) , or instead having a group of people willing to throw back tear gas canisters and light fires to make sure people can breathe and play ball when the cops initiate violence, all the while causing economic damage to corporations who threatened to fire their employees if they made political statements (Oakland).

Great Janitor:Sliding Carp: $5.00 says the party of small government, individual freedom, and free market will find a way to claim the government should force them back to work.

Why should they? Just fire the ones who walk out and replace them. Odds are they won't be missed.

Or, here's how I look at it, if I were working at Walmart, I would, first of all, know that like it or not, working Black Friday was going to happen. All things considered, I'd rather work at the start of the sale on Thanksgiving than on Friday because at least on Thursday I'd get holiday pay. Secondly, knowing the kind of customers and the numbers of customers that show on Black Friday, I'd be a bit pissed that my coworkers decided to skip out on a major day at work instead of doing the job that they were hired to do.

In short, Walmart workers, you knew what you were getting into when you filled out the job application. If you don't like the situation of having to work Black Friday, quit your job and find a different one.

I don't think the strike is because they don't want to work on Black Friday.

GarretSidzaka:were gonna need to support them, they are all gonna be out jobs in 3... 2... 1...

I gave some to the food fund. I will give more this weekend. They haven't raised nearly enough. It was at ~5K when I donated a few minutes ago. The biggest thing we can all do is not shop at Wal-Mart, especially on Thanksgiving. Tell your friends/family, and remind them that the deals they think they'll be getting aren't worth it.

I would hope that if Wal-Mart felt a bit of backlash the other retailers would see the writing on the wall and follow suit, but unfortunately I wouldn't bet on it.

Nutsac_Jim:If you want to do that, then you work your way up to management and you get more money.

That's just like... your opinion... man.Really, give me something besides your opinion that they don't deserve it.It won't bankrupt Wal-Mart to pay every one of their employees a minimum of $12/hr. This is fact. I'll find the study if I have to, but I recall such a move would cost the average Wal-Mart consumer $1.12 per visit.They're clearly making Wal-Mart more money than they're getting in return. The disparity is so great that the only credible explanations are greed and cruelty.

steamingpile:Sue for what? Forcing them to show up for the job they said they would show up for? Some of you are farking insane.

it's illegal to fire employees for organizing or trying to organize. It's a federal law, and in some states there are additional laws. Laws go back to when Carnegie Steel called in the Pinkertons and had them get all shooty with some striking workers.

ILoveBurritos:I get that this is mainly a workers vs employers thread at this point, but I can't help but think that the real problem is the consumers (and excessive consumerism). No one wants to pay for decently made products anymore because the only thing consumers look at is the price tag.

Keep in mind that WalMart ruthlessly stomps out all competition, including that corner hardware store that your parents shopped at, or the local grocery store. As a result, there is almost nothing BUT WalMart to choose from anymore, where else are the consumers supposed to go? Me, I prefer Target, but there are 6 WalMarts closer than Target, and it's a little irresponsible to drive across town, wasting gas, just to shop somewhere else.

Yes, you still have a point, and that consumer behavior is what put WalMart in the position they have now, but at this point, I think a large portion of the customers are people who just plain have no other retail options.

Let's see, ... assuming $12/hour x 32 hours/week (gotta keep them from being "full time") you're at $384/week. 52 weeks/year, with no vacation, is $19,968. Subtract standard deduction ($11,600) and a single personal exemption ($3700) and you're at $4668.Looking at page 74 of the Form 1040 instructions here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf shows a total tax for single or MFS is $468. That's about 2.35%. Subtract out the medicare and social security (5.65%) and you have 9% in taxes. 91% of $12/hour is $10.92, take-home. Keep in mind, that's single, no dependents. First child, or if you're married, and you're starting to get EITC, which means you're GETTING more money. Of course, children are expensive, but if you were good at making life choices, you wouldn't be trying to raise a child as a single parent working at Walmart. Maybe you should have listened to your parents and teachers who told you to work hard in school. Now the only consolation you have is maybe your children will, but they probably won't, and thus renews the boundless cycle of perpetual poverty. My god, this is depressing shiat. I'm getting some rum. Good thing Walmart is nearby and open.

atomic-age:rolladuck: insertsnarkyusername: The can ask for a union and the company legally has to say yes.

The company can also legally shut down those stores. And re-open others in the next town where there is high unemployment of un- or marginally-skilled workers.

Unions aren't the be-all and end-all of employer-employee relationship management. And you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, ... at least metaphorically.

How do you suggest employees sweetly get WM to stop locking them in to work 'off the clock', pay them enough that how to apply for welfare directions are not part of the pre-employment package, and to promote female and minority employees fairly?

Mikey1969:IlGreven: Great Janitor: n short, Walmart workers, you knew what you were getting into when you filled out the job application.

And thus, Wal-Mart is absolved of absolutely all responsibility to you.

/If you're not saying that, don't imply it.

Yeah, I've always LOVED that line of "reasoning". It's the same thing you hear when you point out that waiters make $2.13/hour. Especially ironic coming from the same people who go on rampages against Obama about the unemployment rate, and how people have to take crappy jobs just to get by.

That line of reasoning is the absolute truth. It's common knowledge that waiters make less than $3/hour. No one takes a job not knowing what the pay is going to be until that first paycheck. So, if someone applies for a job and is told before hand that the job pays minimum wage and there is no guarantee at 40 hours each week, and they still accept the job, I don't feel sorry for them. No one put a gun to their head and told them to accept a job at Walmart. That is no different than me handing someone a hammer and saying "Now, if you bash your hand with this it could break your hand." and then watch as they bash their hand with said hammer and then listen as a bone or two breaks. No sympathy.

If they want a better paying job, a better working environment no one is forcing them to work at Walmart, they are free to find new jobs.

rtaylor92:Hunter_Worthington: I wonder what Labor's pitch to wal-mart's workers is?

"let us do for you, what we've done to the U.S. Auto and steel industries"

At least Wal-Mart got a free way to identify lazy, shiftless, braindead workers. They'll fire the dead wood, and the company will be better off.

//any defeat for organized Labor is a victory for the American Economy.

Are you sitting down for this because I don't want you to hurt yourself....German and Japanese autoworkers are both unionized. U.S. Auto struggling the last few decades was simply because they designed and tried to sell awful awful cars.

Their unions are also much better than ours, quality of the cars aside. And it's not like they're getting paid peanuts either. American auto union average is 56/hr...foreign auto union is still up around 35-40/hr. But they also train multiple people to do multiple tasks, instead of having the door installer just do door installing for 30 years.

erveek:...by the Roberts Supreme Court. Gee, I wonder how that will go.

by the time the case ends up in the Supreme Court there could be a couple, at least, different justices there. Also as evident from his opinion in the Health Care Reform Act ruling, Roberts has much respect for existing precedent when it comes to labor law.